From owner-freebsd-questions Wed May 16 6:40:44 2001 Delivered-To: freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Received: from ringworld.nanolink.com (ringworld.nanolink.com [195.24.48.13]) by hub.freebsd.org (Postfix) with SMTP id 3A20937B42C for ; Wed, 16 May 2001 06:40:40 -0700 (PDT) (envelope-from roam@orbitel.bg) Received: (qmail 30770 invoked by uid 1000); 16 May 2001 13:39:59 -0000 Date: Wed, 16 May 2001 16:39:59 +0300 From: Peter Pentchev To: dave Cc: questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: python fork call raised my load over 400! Message-ID: <20010516163959.B30670@ringworld.oblivion.bg> References: <200105161254.FAA14005@scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.2.5i In-Reply-To: <200105161254.FAA14005@scaup.mail.pas.earthlink.net>; from dleimbac@earthlink.net on Wed, May 16, 2001 at 07:57:19AM -0500 Sender: owner-freebsd-questions@FreeBSD.ORG Precedence: bulk X-Loop: FreeBSD.ORG On Wed, May 16, 2001 at 07:57:19AM -0500, dave wrote: [snip description of a classic forkbomb] > I have a friend who tested the same 3 lines of python code right now on his > linux box. He ended up rebooting but he may not have tried to manually > kill the processes to get back. > > My ultimate question is ... should I be comparing FreeBSD to Linux? > Does it really matter if Linux is performing better or worse than FreeBSD? > > Still a user process probably shouldn't be able to hose the whole system > IMHO. (followup to -questions only) It won't be able to, if you define proper limits in /etc/login.conf (for the forking, look at the 'maxproc' limit). G'luck, Peter -- No language can express every thought unambiguously, least of all this one. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-questions" in the body of the message